Love of Ahlulbayt questioned on day of judgement

[Shia_student]

Asalaam Alaikum.

Do you guys agree that we will be enquired about loving the Ahlulbayt on the Day of Judgement?

This Hadith could be rated as 'Hassan" on fair grounds:

‎حديث مرفوع) حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ , قَالَ : نا أَبُو يُوسُفَ الْقُلُوسِيُّ , قَالَ : نا الْحَارِثُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْكُوفِيُّ , قَالَ : نا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ عَيَّاشٍ ، عَنْ مَعْرُوفِ بْنِ خَرَّبُوذَ ، عَنْ أَبِي الطُّفَيْلِ عَامِرٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي بَرْزَةَ , قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " لا تَزُولُ قَدَمَا عَبْدٍ حَتَّى يُسْأَلَ عَنْ أَرْبَعَةٍ : عَنْ جَسَدِهِ فِيمَا أَبْلاهُ ، وَعُمْرِهِ فِيمَا أَفْنَاهُ ، وَمَالِهِ مِنْ أَيْنَ اكْتَسَبَهُ وَفِيمَا أَنْفَقَهُ ، وَعَنْ حُبِّ أَهْلِ الْبَيْتِ " ، فَقِيلَ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ، فَمَا عَلامَةُ حُبِّكُمْ ؟ فَضَرَبَ بِيَدِهِ عَلَى مَنْكِبِ عَلِيٍّ رَضِي اللَّهُ عَنْهُ .

Abu barazah said: The Messenger of Allah stated: The feet of a man won't slip until he was asked about four things:

His body: What did he utilize it for

His life: How did he spend it

His wealth: How did he spend it

Also, the love of AhlulBayt.

So, he (Prophet saww) was asked, what's the sign of loving you? The Messenger of Allah (s) tapped on the elbow of Ali (implying he is the sign, i.e. Loving him is the sign of loving the Messenger).

The criticism against the narrators is not FULLY justified. Let's start with Ma'ruf bin Kharboodh.

Imam Bukhari has placed a chain in his  Sahih, which includes him in it. That is in connection with an athar from Ali (as).

One could say it's mawquf, but al-Bukhari saw it as authentic, hence he placed it in his Sahih without another support for it.

Imam Muslim has a chain with him in reference to a report regarding a practice of Haj.

Ibn Hajar called him Saduq.
Imam Dhahabi called him Saduq.

The criticism against him is unexplained.

Corrections welcome.

[Farid]

Wa alaykum alsalam,

I'm guessing you looked these narrators up before posting. Who do you believe Al Harith is?

[Shia_student]

We can get to him, after assessing the real status of others in order. Even if Harith is majhool, we can use a different route as a support. He is he only weak link here, unless Ma'ruf bin Kharboodh is taken as weak too. That would imply double weakness in the chain. However, that may not be the case.

[Link]

According to noble hadiths,  to love the family of Mohammad always meant to make them the eyes by which see, the eyes to the head, or the mind to the body.

[Farid]

We can get to him, after assessing the real status of others in order. Even if Harith is majhool, we can use a different route as a support. He is he only weak link here, unless Ma'ruf bin Kharboodh is taken as weak too. That would imply double weakness in the chain. However, that may not be the case.

I don't think this comes to Ma'ruf through another supporting chain to be honest.

[Shia_student]

Yes, not through ma'ruf but a shawahid like the following:

حَدَّثَنَا الْهَيْثَمُ بْنُ خَلَفٍ الدُّورِيُّ ، نَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ ، مَوْلَى بَنِي هَاشِمٍ ، نَا حُسَيْنُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ الأَشْقَرُ ، نَا هُشَيْمٌ ، عَنْ أَبِي هَاشِمٍ الرُّمَّانِيِّ ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " لا تَزُولُ قَدَمَا الْعَبْدِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ حَتَّى يُسْأَلَ عَنْ أَرْبَعٍ : عَنْ عُمُرِهِ فِيمَا أَفْنَاهُ ، وَعَنْ جَسَدِهِ فِيمَا أَبْلاهُ ، وَعَنْ مَالِهِ فِيمَا أَنْفَقَهُ وَمِنْ أَيْنَ كَسَبَهُ ، وَعَنْ حُبِّنَا أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ "

One may argue against Hussain al-Ashqar, but he has been vouched by:

Ibn Hibban (mentioned in his thiqat)...

Yahya Ma'in said, nothing wrong with him, which implies reliability...

Ibn Hajar stated Saduq, commits errors, extreme in Shiaism...

One of sayings of al-bukhari concerning him is that he is muqarab al-hadith.

However, if there is some praise for someone, then the jarh needs to be explained.

[Hani]

How about Ahmad bin Yazid who made Tafarrud here according to Tabarani? What's his status according to Huffadh?

Also is Hushaym a Mudallis? In which category did Ibn Hajar place him among Mudallisin?

As for Husayn al-Ashqar, he seems to be quite the weakling in Hadith, makes errors and is an extremist narrating what supports his innovation. Either-way, if we weigh down his praise and criticism, what do we conclude?

Question, are there more authentic narrations that resemble this one, mentioning all the above or similar except for that last bit about Ahlul-Bayt?

[Shia_student]

There are other weak routes, together they can support the matter. However, why does it have to be that when a Shia narrates a report about Ahlulbayt, he is supporting his innovation?

Firstly, the love and questioning about Ahlulbayt has been mentioned in various of ways. As you have seen above and also through the report of Tabarani, which contains this phrase:

وإني سائلكم حين تردون علي عن الثقلين

http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?bk_no=84&ID=713&idfrom=2973&idto=3034&bookid=84&startno=52

You may argue that Zayd bin Hassan and Ma'ruf bin Kharaboodh are weak, but the reality is otherwise.

Abi Hatim's sole criticism is not valid against Zayd bin Hassan, specially when Ibn Hibban and al-Tirmidhi vouch for his reliability.

As for Ma'ruf, I don't know how Effendi weakened him with the following:

Maroof ibn Kharboodh. Ibn Hajar al-Askalani in “Lisanul mezaan” (7/395/n4888) noticed: Ibn Hibban said he was upright, ibn Muin said he was weak. Tawseq of ibn Hibban doesn’t mean a lot, because he use to make tawseq upon almost everyone, who wasn’t discredited. Dhahabi himself included this narrator in his book “Mughni fi duafa” (6342) where he said: “Shia, upright.  Yahya ibn Muin said he’s weak. Ahmad said: “I don’t know grading of his narrations”. Abu Khatim said: “His narrations are to be recorded”. Ibn Jawzi included him in his book “Duafa wal matrukin”  (#3370).
Ukayli in his “Duafa” (1810) noticed that his narrations are not to be relied on, and they aren’t known except by him.

I say, Ma'ruf bin Kharaboodh has been relied upon by Bukhari and Muslim.

Abi Hatim said record his Hadith...

Dhahabi in his Mizan called him: Saduq Shia...

Ibn Hajar said, Saduq commits errors sometimes...

[Farid]

Let's approach this one step at a time.

When I criticized Al-Harith bin Mohammad Al-Kufi, you said that there is a different supporting route. You then provided "support" from the hadith of Ibn Abbas.

It seems that there was a miscommunication. I was requesting support from the narration of Abi Barzah.

You see, when studying the narration of Abi Barzah, the hadith comes from the narration of Abu Bakr bin Ayyash. Though, his two students narrate the hadith in two different ways. Al-Aswad bin Amir, narrates it from him, from Al-A'amash, from Sa'eed bin Abdullah bin Juraij, from Abi Barzah. (See Al-Tirmithi)

Al-Harith bin Mohammad also narrates it from Abu Bakr bin Ayyash, but presents the chain that you have provided.

It is unlikely that Abu Bakr bin Ayyash provided each student with a different chain. Such instances may occur, but when this happens, the default position is that the different chains are from the different students. In this case, Al-Aswad bin Amir is more reliable than Al-Harith bin Mohammad, who happens to be anonymous.

Also, the narration of Al-Aswad bin Amir does not contain anything about Ahlulbayt, which means that the narration of Al-Harith contains an addition. Additions, according to hadith sciences, cannot be approved through an anonymous narrator.

If you keep this in mind, you will come to the conclusion that Al-Harith bin Mohammad did not provide a correct chain or text. In other words, you cannot use this as "supporting evidence". A case for supporting evidence can only be made when the hadiths have some strength. This narration, on the other hand, has clear errors.

[Shia_student]

Sorry meant shawahid as a support, and did mention that afterwards.

AlHarith did not provide a correct chain or text?

But his news is supported by the report of ibn 'Abbas?

Then the report of Tabarani presented   later also supports the questioning of  Ahlulbayt's love.

Bear in mind, the reports of mudallas, majhool, etc can be used as a support.

[Farid]

Sorry meant shawahid as a support, and did mention that afterwards.

AlHarith did not provide a correct chain or text?

It doesn't seem he provided a correct version of either.

But his news is supported by the report of ibn 'Abbas?

Let me put it this way... There is no doubt in my mind that Abu Barzah did not narrate this. The evidence that he did is too weak. Any alternative chain that you may provide to another companion can only be used to establish that the other companion narrated this, and not Abu Barzah. Try to think of this practically and you will see what I mean.

Bear in mind, the reports of mudallas, majhool, etc can be used as a support.

Not necessarily. A majhool narrator can be a liar in reality. A mudalis could have skipped the name of a liar as well. Ilm Al-Hadith isn't as simple as Majhool + Majhool + Majhool = Saheeh, as we both know.

[AE]

Yes, not through ma'ruf but a shawahid like the following:
حَدَّثَنَا الْهَيْثَمُ بْنُ خَلَفٍ الدُّورِيُّ ، نَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ ، مَوْلَى بَنِي هَاشِمٍ ، نَا حُسَيْنُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ الأَشْقَرُ ، نَا هُشَيْمٌ ، عَنْ أَبِي هَاشِمٍ الرُّمَّانِيِّ ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " لا تَزُولُ قَدَمَا الْعَبْدِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ حَتَّى يُسْأَلَ عَنْ أَرْبَعٍ : عَنْ عُمُرِهِ فِيمَا أَفْنَاهُ ، وَعَنْ جَسَدِهِ فِيمَا أَبْلاهُ ، وَعَنْ مَالِهِ فِيمَا أَنْفَقَهُ وَمِنْ أَيْنَ كَسَبَهُ ، وَعَنْ حُبِّنَا أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ "
One may argue against Hussain al-Ashqar, but he has been vouched by:
Ibn Hibban (mentioned in his thiqat)...
Yahya Ma'in said, nothing wrong with him, which implies reliability...
Ibn Hajar stated Saduq, commits errors, extreme in Shiaism...
One of sayings of al-bukhari concerning him is that he is muqarab al-hadith.
However, if there is some praise for someone, then the jarh needs to be explained.

Laysa bihi bas - nothing wrong with him is a lowest expression for reliability from what I know.

You are right, that in case of tawsiq is present, jarh need to be explained.

And it was indeed. Ashqar been accused in lie.

Zahabi in “Mizan” #1986 wrote:
ال البخاري: فيه نظر. وقال أبو زرعة: منكر الحديث. وقال أبو حاتم: ليس بقوى.
“Bukhari said: “He is under question”. Abu Zura said: “Munkaar ahadeeth”. Abu Hatim said: “He’s not strong”.
وقال أبو معمر الهذلى: كذاب. وقال النسائي والدارقطني: ليس بالقوى
“Abu Muamar Khuzali said: “Liar”. Nasai and Daraqutni said: “Not strong”.